Judge: Layne H. Melzer, Case: 22-01252832, Date: 2022-08-04 Tentative Ruling

Pltf. Shanghai Breeze Technology Company, Ltd.
Petition to Compel Arbitration


Petitioner Shanghai Breeze Technology Company, Ltd. (“Petitioner”) seeks an order compelling Respondent Willard Marine, Inc. (“Respondent”) to arbitrate a dispute that has arisen between the parties. 


As an initial matter, the Court notes Petitioner submitted new evidence in support of its reply.  “The general rule of motion practice…is that new evidence is not permitted with reply papers…‘[T]he inclusion of additional evidentiary matter with the reply should only be allowed in the exceptional case ...’ and if permitted, the other party should be given the opportunity to respond.”  (Jay v. Mahaffey (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1522, 1537-1538.)  The Court declines to consider Petitioner’s new evidence. 


Petitioner’s petition to compel arbitration is granted.  Petitioner showed, and Respondent concedes, that the parties entered into an agreement to arbitrate and Petitioner’s claim is subject to the agreement to arbitrate.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2; Cal. Rules of Ct., Rule 3.1330; Hotels Nevada v. L.A. Pacific Center, Inc. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 754, 761; Wang Decl., Exhibit 1, ¶ 14; Response, 2:8-11, 2:28-3:1, 3:8-15, 7:8-9, 8:7-8.) 


Respondent contends the only issue is whether Petitioner is required to file its demand with the AAA.  (Id., 8:11-13.)  However, this is not an issue properly before the Court at this time.  Petitioner only sought an order compelling arbitration.  If the parties cannot agree on an arbitrator, the proper procedure to select an arbitrator is set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.6.  (Maggio v. Windward Capital Management Co. (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 1210, 1213-1214.) 


Neither party has shown a stay is necessary.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.4.) 


Petitioner shall give notice.